Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher education leaders are well-positioned to help advance the preconditions of and the foundations for well-being among people and among humans vis-à-vis nature. Campus leaders have distinctive opportunities and unique resources to address well-being, even in the absence of institutional supports. The authors draw from the literature to illustrate how diverse campus leaders are advancing well-being on campuses, individually and collectively, by breaking through institutional barriers, disrupting unjust policy action and inaction, and challenging dominant narratives that violate human rights and constrain civil liberties; by resisting corporate definitions of work-life balance; by privileging diverse knowledge forms, modes of communications, and ways of being; by re-centering civic mindedness and the common good; by embracing more holistic understandings of well-being; and by honoring humanity's dependence on eco-system diversity. In uncertain times, it is crucial that campus leaders engage in dialogue to advance health and well-being across and beyond campus communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".